Hello friends,
Pets, as we all know are domestic animals. Some people keep them not only for pleasure but to make show of their wealth, as an expensive and rare animals only those people can keep who have much money. But the people who keep pets to show off, pleasure or company completely forget that these pets can injure badly someone. So the people who keep pets should never tamed or practice the pets of biting or fighting and pet owner should avoid to accompanied them in the public places to reduced the cased of injuring in this regard. Pet’s owner should try to avoid the dangerous animals like snakes, lions, etc to be their pets. Similarly the pets, used to bite so their owners should keep muzzled their pets for safety. I think the owners are much responsible for behavior for their pets. If the owners keep their pets in care like owners take care of their pets food, health etc then I don’t think so pets will behave badly. But if the health conditions of pets aren’t cure able like if a pet’s disease is incurable or its mental condition isn’t good then I think pet must be put down. Because its kill ness will in the favoure of its owner’s as well as in public’s favoure.
Hamza Arif Pakistan

Anyone who ‘only’ uses a breed's reputation to say that it should be banned is only using that reputation as excuse for a poor understanding of animal behavior. Most dogs, regardless of breed will bite/attack if they are raised in a home that provides poor socialization and/or lack of leadership or if they feel threatened.

I think that certain people would not provide the proper home for such a breed, and should therefore, not own one. Those who want the animal to supplement their own aggression/power should think again, and buy a goldfish. Educate yourself about the breed you want to own, and then put the work into the dog to have it become a loved and valued member of your family. Like children, dogs know what they are taught, or in most instances, not taught. Irresonsible breeding can be as much to blame as irresponsible animal training. A conscious pet owner not only researches the breeds characteristics, but also the breeders philosophy and reputation.

I think if somebody is attacked by a dog it is often their fault or the dogs owner. If the owner let's the dog loose, takes a violent dog out in public without leash or muzzle, or keeps it in a poorly contained area then it's their fault if the dog harms someone. However if you go to someones house and let your children run up to a dog while it's eating, or let your kid jump up and down on a dog while it's sleeping you're setting yourself up for disaster. I believe it is my responsibility first and foremost to make sure my child is safe, just like I buckle him into his carseat not because i'm a bad driver, but because I don't know who out there is driving recklessly.

I don't think that a ban for certain breeds is the “perfect” solution, because every dog can “flip out” when it feels threatened or cornered. Some people are attracted to vicious looking dogs and buy, train and/or breed them to encourage that behaviour. It's the people who raise and train the dogs that are largely responsible for their behaviour. Lack of training is also often a factor. Dogs, by their very nature, are predators. They practise that behaviour in play as puppies. If they are not taught otherwise, they grow into 'big puppies' and continue the behviour as well as trying to be 'head dog'. Then, it's often too late to retrain them. And it's not their fault for acting on their instincts.

Prometheus wrote:In my opinion it depends on the situation. For example, if my dog had attacked and killed Mother Teresa, then I should have been held responsible. But if my dog attacked and killed George Bush Jnr (or Snr for that matter) then George Bush should be held responsible (posthumously, of course) and I should be given a Nobel prize.

I know you're trying to be funny, but personally, I don't think it's ok to say that. I'm not a fan of Bush family; however, it doesn't mean I do feel right to kill him. Killing is killing. It doesn't matter who you've killed. If a person is evilly dangerous, that person should be siezed by the laws.

oh,thanks to God!I find the orgnization finally
I have come to here for several days ,but I just skip the post
here,I have many words to say,but I can't find the way how
to post my opinion in here.Now I got it

Yes! It is pet owner’s responsibility to take care of his pets to avoid any possible attack against human. I have a cute Boston Terror. She is so affectionate to every family member and a good door keeper as well. But she has one shortcoming --- She is always shouting at strangers who seems quite interested in her. Therefore every time while I take her outside, I should take a leash.

Of course the owners should be responsible for their pets. It is like this.

Shouldn't parents of small kids be responsible for their children's behaviour??

I have no doubt about that no one is goint to say " No the parents shouldn't!"

If you have a pet and u love her so much. that means you are her mother,, you cannot avoid taking responsibilities about what your child (pet) is doing in public.
So~! if the owners don't want to take responsibility, i want to say this, DO NOT OWN A PET!!!

I believe that in some countries exist such laws. I'm not sure, I don't remember exactly but I believe, that here in estonia one person who not feed own horses was banned owning animals. (brrr... englis is so hard) I don't but almost never my dog to lead. I just have a bazooka. And if my dog ton't kill dangerous beoples who vant sue me, because I don't but my dog to lead, or because my dog barking. Then I kill self those persons before thei can sue me.

Actually I think: Must teach peoples allreadyk in kindregarten, how to act with anymals and owning anymals. There is not needed laws, like that u must keep your dog on leads or muzzled. here in my hometown is this law. I think It's owners responsiblyti. If owner feels tha't he/she can trust his dog, then it's not my business, at least so far when nobody don't atack me. And even when dog atack, then its not always dogs or owners fault. some beoples is just so stupid. Really peoples must learn how to act with dangerous dogs.

In Australia all dogs have to walked on a lead. I think this is a great idea (we also have to use poop scoops and place their dodoos in bins). Dogs also aren't allowed to roam the streets and have to be microchipped and registered by Councils for ownership reasons. If you walk and play with you dog everyday; they don't miss roaming around.

Prometheus wrote:In my opinion it depends on the situation. For example, if my dog had attacked and killed Mother Teresa, then I should have been held responsible. But if my dog attacked and killed George Bush Jnr (or Snr for that matter) then George Bush should be held responsible (posthumously, of course) and I should be given a Nobel prize.

I know you're trying to be funny, but personally, I don't think it's ok to say that. I'm not a fan of Bush family; however, it doesn't mean I do feel right to kill him. Killing is killing. It doesn't matter who you've killed. If a person is evilly dangerous, that person should be siezed by the laws.

I think you need to re-read the comments; they were a joke. I don't think this person meant it literally plus I don't think he would personally go and kill anyone. Just a generalisation.

Prometheus wrote:In my opinion it depends on the situation. For example, if my dog had attacked and killed Mother Teresa, then I should have been held responsible. But if my dog attacked and killed George Bush Jnr (or Snr for that matter) then George Bush should be held responsible (posthumously, of course) and I should be given a Nobel prize.

I know you're trying to be funny, but personally, I don't think it's ok to say that. I'm not a fan of Bush family; however, it doesn't mean I do feel right to kill him. Killing is killing. It doesn't matter who you've killed. If a person is evilly dangerous, that person should be siezed by the laws.

I think you need to re-read the comments; they were a joke. I don't think this person meant it literally plus I don't think he would personally go and kill anyone. Just a generalisation.

Booooooooooooo to you! I said I knew he was trying to be funny. Now am I funny or what???

wonki wrote:So~! if the owners don't want to take responsibility, i want to say this, DO NOT OWN A PET!!!

wonki, how can you ban them from owning pets? There is no rule. Do you have any method then?

_Arale_

In Australia this week three breeds of dogs have been banned in this Country due to increasing numbers of attacks on children over the past several years. Anyone owning these dogs now has to have them neutered to prevent breeding. This will eventually eliminate this breed of dog in Australia.

Sure, the owner should be responsible for the pets' behaviour. In most case, the owner likes his pet. Just like his children, should they be responsible for their children's behaviour? Definitely the answer is Yes.

Yes, the owner should be responsible for their pets, especially dangerous pets, i think government should have some policy for it, such as : can not keep dangerous pets, should be in trace for all of the pets.
i dont like to keep pets for a long time.

Some just attacked 12 years-old little boy and killed him when he was locked in the basement with that stupid dog for his punishment. The story is really sad. I'll find a link to share with you when I'm back. Kinda busy now. Anyway, the bottom line of that story is Pitt Bulls will be watched. And that mother, gosh, some mothers are monsters. She didn't even grip over her son's death. I think she should be punished instead of that dog.